Frayed Knot

When I first saw this I thought maybe we had signed Ryne Sandberg, who was good and all but he's kind of old (how old? he's MY age old, that's how old) So this is a much better signing IMO. Q: Ryne Sandberg was named for former 10-year MLB RHP Ryne Duren. So was Stanek, born in 1991 (in StL) and still in the midst of Sandberg's eventual HoF career, named for Sandberg?

Yup! 11th of 15 in the NL last year. The 0-5 start and the disaster that was the month of May certainly didn't get things off to a good start. But you'd think a 49-32 2nd half with all the nail biters down the stretch would have helped make up more ground.

=Gwreck post_id=184009 time=1738120852 user_id=56] There's not much evidence to suggest any long-term attendance trends are linked to start times. Game length? Maybe, although attendance was fairly steady through the 2000s and 2010s as the average game length went up.

Fans claiming bias, either for or against a given team's prospects, is as old and unprovable as are charges of umpire/referee bias. So I'd take 'interesting' and replace it with 'wildly speculative'.

Some stuff on game times in general: basically that MLB games are starting earlier, ending earlier, and are shorter in duration. - so where the 7PM was long the norm, 2024 saw 41.7% of weekday games start prior to 7PM. In 2025 that'll be up to 62.8% - time of games: 2021 = 3:10; 2022 = 3:04; 2023 (first year of new rules) = 2:40; 2024 = 2:36 - 2021 weekday games ending prior to 10PM = 44.7%; 2024 weekday games ending prior to 10PM = 87.8% - 2021 ending prior to 9:30PM = 24%; 2024 games ending prior to 9:30PM = 59.1% And in what may or may not be a related statistic, MLB attendance in 2024 was the highest in seven years

=Centerfield post_id=183996 time=1738102322 user_id=65] Does anyone know who does MLB's list?

I predict the Mets are going to do all of those things ... simultaneously!!

A prospect stalling out at a level, whether through injury or just poor or stagnant results, is the equivalent of moving backwards as far as these lists go. Too many new could-be stars appear every year. It doesn't mean one can't jump back onto the lists with a good season in '25, but it's tough since he'll be two years older than the last time he was listed and will be compared to others via that lens. On the other hand, some guys who never appear on these lists go on to have productive ML careers. These lists are a snapshot in time, not the final word.

MLB.com is out with theirs: 1 - Roki Sasaki: RHP (LAD) 2 - Roman Anthony: OF (BOS) 3 - Walker Jenkins: OF (MIN) 4 - Dylan Crews*: OF (WAS) 5 - Jackson Jobe**: RHP (DET) 6 - Max Clark: OF (DET) 7 - Kristian Campbell: 2B/SS/OF (BOS) 8 - Andrew Painter: RHP (PHI) 9 - Carson Williams: SS (TBR) 10 - Travis Bazzana: 2B (CLE) .... 46 - Brandon Sprout: RHP (NYM) ... 58 - Jett Williams: SS/OF (NYM) https://www.mlb.com/milb/prospects/top100/https://www.mlb.com/milb/prospects/top100/ * I would have sworn that he was no longer a rookie but I guess his 132 PA/119 AB in 2024 leaves him still under the limit ** Because all the best prospects are named Jackson

Those who Did get Best Director nods: - Sean Baker: Anora - Brady Corbet: The Brutalist - James Mangold: A Complete Unknown - Jacques Audiard: Emilia Perez - Coralie Fargeat: The Substance .... all connected to one of the nominated films Best Actor: - Adrian Brody: The Brutalist - Timothee Chalamet: A Complete Unknown - Coleman Domingo: Sing Sing - Ralph Fiennes: Conclave - Sebastian Stan: The Apprentice Best Actress: - Cynthia Erivo: Wicked - Karla Sofia Gascon: Emilia Perez - Mikey Madison: Anora - Demi Moore: The Substance - Fernanda Torres: I'm Still Here

When they upped the nominated movies to ten but left directors capped at five, instances of 'snubbed' directors inevitably became a yearly story.

At some point (early '90s?) the NHL flipped from home=white/road=color to the other way around. Neither was required or universal, either before or after, but the default method pulled a 180 at some point for some reason.

I thought that was the case but wasn't sure. I just threw that line in there because it's the first thing that came to mind when I started typing the words, 'Illegal Defense'. One used to hear that multiple times per game, it seems, back in the day.

So, without specifying what abandonment means, they're still leaving it to the judgement of the umpire? From above: "He is considered to have abandoned the bag as soon as both feet land on the other side of the base." What they appear to be leaving up to umpire judgement is intent. Is a runner, already called out, continuing to run so as to confuse or distract the defense? If so, the umps have the option to Not reward him with his base back if the replay rules that he should have been safe in the first place.

The logic behind it, from what I can figure, is that a runner, once called out, can't continue to run the bases as if he's still part of the play. So if/when this happened AND that runner was later ruled 'Safe' by replay, he was placed back on 2nd base while the other batter/runners were as they were when the play ended. Now, what they're saying, is that IF there's a replay reversal the runner can, in the umpire's judgement, be called out for abandoning the base rather then automatically being re-awarded the base. I guess what the runner is supposed to do is hang around 2nd while he waits and sees if his bench issues a challenge to the call rather than continue running and possibly compel the defense to try and chase down a runner already called out or serve to distract them from another player who is still a live runner. Now, supposing the relay to 1st is thrown wide and the batter/runner heads for 2nd? At that point he'd have to head towards 3rd (and maybe home?) so I guess that's where umpire judgement comes into play. He could rule that he wasn't running to distract or confuse and therefore would Not be out by abandonment if replay reversed his out call.

Approved by the competition committee this week 1) in the case where the defensive team was violating the anti-shift rules (three fielders on either side of 2B or an IF'er with feet on the OF grass) - Previously, if an infielder was caught violating the rule the batting team could accept the result of the play or have the hitter be awarded an automatic ball. Under the new rules, the batting team may accept the result of the play or the batter will be granted a free base (enabling any other runners to advance one base) if there is a violation and the violating player was the first to touch the ball in play. In such a scenario, the violating player would be charged an error and no at-bat would be registered for the batter. 2)The second rule change involves the rare practice of running through a base other than first base on a force play. For example, if there are runners on first and third with two out and a ball is hit on the ground, the runner going to second base might opt to run straight through the bag rather than sliding in the hope that he'd get there faster and beat the throw. In the past, if a runner was called out at second in this scenario, and upon review a replay official found that he actually did beat the throw before going past the bag, the umpires would have to ignore that the runner overran the base and place him on second. The new rule change gives umpires the power to call the trail runner out for abandonment of second base even if he beat the throw. He is considered to have abandoned the bag as soon as both feet land on the other side of the base. In that case, whether the runner at third scores or not will depend on whether he touched home plate before or after the runner at second was ruled to have abandoned second base. On the first one: I don't remember an illegal defense call made last year (do they still even call it in the NBA?). But, if the call is made and the illegally slotted IF is the first to touch the batted ball I can see the wisdom in the free base option. A bigger penalty makes fudging on the rules less tempting. 'Hey, I'll cheat onto the OF grass and if I can throw him out on a grounder good for us ... and if they catch me it's just Ball One so no biggie!' On the second: the way it reads I think this is only applicable if the runner over-runs 2nd or 3rd and is ruled safe only after replay review, iow, after the fact. So it's kind of a rarity on top of a rarity. But some runners were using the over-run as a kind of strategy which was risky, but kind of cool at the same time. ex: Runners on 1st & 3rd/1 out. Runner from 1st runs through 2nd because it gets him to the base quicker, sometimes quickly enough to beat the force play. So now if the batter is out at 1st on the replay, it's only the 2nd out and the run from 3rd scores because the force is now off even if the defense eventually puts the other runner out between 2nd & 3rd. And maybe the runner himself winds up safe at either 2nd or 3rd if the defense doesn't play it correctly. So, smart strategy by the runner(s) if you can pull it off! But I guess the purpose here is to Not reward guys who were initially called out via a force. He was called out therefore him leaving the base was abandonment so he's out anyway even if replay later rules otherwise. So the real culprit here is the limitations of replay and the idea that incorrect calls can all get fixed after the fact and the situation will be put back to how it 'would have been' with a correct call. https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-shift-baserunning-rules-changes-2025https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-shift-baserunning-rules-changes-2025

One idea would be to move Vladdy back to 3B where he played in his first season and occasionally since. So you've got Pete, Vlad, and Santander to cover 1st, 3rd, RF, and DH Vlad's a FA after this coming season so it's a short term fix.

A Complete Unknown The Brutalist The Substance Wicked Anora Dune: Part II Conclave Emilia Perez I'm Still Here Nickel Boys

So I assume this design was chosen based on how many fans liked the script New York design on the 1980s uniforms. Ask Keith and Ron about those. Both were particularly enamored with them.

It's a contest to determine the best NYM-realated cover, not the best cover from a paper whose editorial outlook you agree with.

Ichiro still not speaking English in interviews ... which is kind of disappointing in that he reportedly speaks/understands the language much better than he lets on. Will he speak English at his induction ceremony? Sounds like probably not despite his 19 seasons on this side of the Pacific.

David stays alive with 8.1%

Ichiro Suzuki (one vote shy of unanimous) Carsten Charles Sabathia William Edward Wagner

So Santander is the same age as Pete, both had their first full season in 2019, Pete has about one more season's worth of PAs in that time (3,607 vs 3,115) Santander has a less consistent track record although more or less the same recently. He plays the OF (not sure how well) and switch hits. Their BAs are about the same but Pete has a 22 point lead in OBA and a 45 pt gap in SLG Santander gets two more years than the Mets offered Pete (assuming all rumors are accurate) but settles for less per/year [approx $18/per vs $28-ish?)

The difference between OBA and BA isn't a rate (as I said in my previous post) but merely a number. By comparing that number to the traditional (and little varying) league average of around 65-70 one can quickly see if a batter walks at rates greater or less than the overall norm. You're trying to turn it into a percentage and that was never the intent.